Tim,
I came across http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-09-24.html
and found
[[
[03:14:20] tim
So I am left wondering whether to build
this log:forAll :x. {} log:implies { :x a rdf:Resource }.
^s
into cwm so that I can use Jos's rules directly -- or is
the whole idea that you have to turn on each rule - you have
control of them. I didn't notice this axiom in his list.
]]
I see that adding that rule doesn't help CWM to infer
more, and that Euler has a parser problem
while I thought that I fixed that {} :-(
Adding
->
{ :s :p :o } log:implies { :s a rdfs:Resource }.
is better, and CWM now thinks
->
rdfs:Resource a rdfs:Class,
rdfs:Resource .
rdfs:domain a rdfs:ConstraintResource,
rdfs:Resource .
rdfs:range a rdfs:ConstraintResource,
rdfs:Resource .
however is see that it is not finding
->
rdfs:ConstraintResource a rdfs:Class.
whereas Euler thinks it is
->
{:RULE7 a rdfs:Resource.
rdfs:domain a rdfs:ConstraintResource} log:implies
{rdfs:ConstraintResource a rdfs:Class}.
{:RULE7 a rdfs:Resource.
rdfs:range a rdfs:ConstraintResource} log:implies
{rdfs:ConstraintResource a rdfs:Class}.
We actually have that rule built in (and also the one
to infer wether a thing is a rdf:Property) because we
could,t find a way to do that in a back-chaining way...
There was not an "idea that you have to turn on each rule"
but that could be interesting :-)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/